Kavanaugh

16465666769

Comments

  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 3,274
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    my2hands said:
    Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices... 

    Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?


    The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning 


    I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judges
    The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well. 
    I could get behind a 20 year term. Only thing is you might want to stagger it evenly once it's implemented. Would be a can of worms if 4 seats opened in 18 months every 20 years.

    I feel like you'd have the same conflict no matter who nominates. Full Senate? Judiciary Comittee? Think that would have gone any better for your taste? I'm frankly stunned at how Trump has done on Justices. Feel great about Gorsuch; didn't love Kavanaugh but he has the resume. If you follow them with an open mind, I think you'll be surprised (especially Gorsuch). They're nowhere near as partisan as elected officials, but I see a lot of people make that assumption. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,238
    edited October 10
    pjl44 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    my2hands said:
    Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices... 

    Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?


    The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning 


    I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judges
    The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well. 
    I could get behind a 20 year term. Only thing is you might want to stagger it evenly once it's implemented. Would be a can of worms if 4 seats opened in 18 months every 20 years.

    I feel like you'd have the same conflict no matter who nominates. Full Senate? Judiciary Comittee? Think that would have gone any better for your taste? I'm frankly stunned at how Trump has done on Justices. Feel great about Gorsuch; didn't love Kavanaugh but he has the resume. If you follow them with an open mind, I think you'll be surprised (especially Gorsuch). They're nowhere near as partisan as elected officials, but I see a lot of people make that assumption. 
    No way should the senate do it, lol. I was more thinking some kind of public law association with a specific mandate to ensure non-partisanship in law and justice. It should have literally no connection to the US government at all, besides serving to select non-partisan judges (aside from through background checks done on their behalf by whatever government agency that would be appropriate - again, one that is non-partisan, i.e. not answering to the POTUS or the administration). Such things are possible believe it or not. Not everyone is a self-serving prick, haha. ;)
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 3,274
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    my2hands said:
    Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices... 

    Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?


    The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning 


    I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judges
    The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well. 
    I could get behind a 20 year term. Only thing is you might want to stagger it evenly once it's implemented. Would be a can of worms if 4 seats opened in 18 months every 20 years.

    I feel like you'd have the same conflict no matter who nominates. Full Senate? Judiciary Comittee? Think that would have gone any better for your taste? I'm frankly stunned at how Trump has done on Justices. Feel great about Gorsuch; didn't love Kavanaugh but he has the resume. If you follow them with an open mind, I think you'll be surprised (especially Gorsuch). They're nowhere near as partisan as elected officials, but I see a lot of people make that assumption. 
    No way should the senate do it, lol. I was more thinking some kind of public law association with a specific mandate to ensure non-partisanship in law and justice. It should have literally no connection to the US government at all, besides serving to select non-partisan judges (aside from through background checks done on their behalf by whatever government agency that would be appropriate - again, one that is non-partisan, i.e. not answering to the POTUS or the administration). Such things are possible believe it or not. Not everyone is a self-serving prick, haha. ;)
    Call me a cynic, but I don't think you can have an organization wielding that much power to be free of partisans. Someone is in charge of staffing that association. Who? It's imperfect, but at the end of the day these are elected officials. It is true that not everyone is a self-serving prick, but you can bet your ass that's who would find their way onto that committee!
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,238
    edited October 10
    pjl44 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    my2hands said:
    Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices... 

    Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?


    The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning 


    I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judges
    The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well. 
    I could get behind a 20 year term. Only thing is you might want to stagger it evenly once it's implemented. Would be a can of worms if 4 seats opened in 18 months every 20 years.

    I feel like you'd have the same conflict no matter who nominates. Full Senate? Judiciary Comittee? Think that would have gone any better for your taste? I'm frankly stunned at how Trump has done on Justices. Feel great about Gorsuch; didn't love Kavanaugh but he has the resume. If you follow them with an open mind, I think you'll be surprised (especially Gorsuch). They're nowhere near as partisan as elected officials, but I see a lot of people make that assumption. 
    No way should the senate do it, lol. I was more thinking some kind of public law association with a specific mandate to ensure non-partisanship in law and justice. It should have literally no connection to the US government at all, besides serving to select non-partisan judges (aside from through background checks done on their behalf by whatever government agency that would be appropriate - again, one that is non-partisan, i.e. not answering to the POTUS or the administration). Such things are possible believe it or not. Not everyone is a self-serving prick, haha. ;)
    Call me a cynic, but I don't think you can have an organization wielding that much power to be free of partisans. Someone is in charge of staffing that association. Who? It's imperfect, but at the end of the day these are elected officials. It is true that not everyone is a self-serving prick, but you can bet your ass that's who would find their way onto that committee!
    Yeah, you're a cynic. I understand why Americans would feel that way at this point, but that more tells the story of where America is at psychologically, not of what's actually doable. It simply has to be done properly. And no, at the end of the day it doesn't have to be elected officials making any of those related decisions. 
    In any case, surely you can at least agree that the current system is terrible. 
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 5,630
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 16,014
    Now THAT is awesome!!!

    No more Fixers Ed, thanks!
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,238
    Yeah, that is awesome.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 14,265
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    my2hands said:
    Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices... 

    Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?


    The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning 


    I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judges
    The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well. 
    have heard an idea floated for 18 yr terms. Every 2 years a new justice is seated.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 16,014
    PJ_Soul said:
    Yeah, that is awesome.
    Absolutely killer. 
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,065
    dignin said:
    mfc2006 said:
    Party over morality. Disgusting.
    Party over common sense and decency as well
    Decency and morality are gone.  josevolution said:
    rgambs said:
    We deserve Kavanaugh.
    A nation of deplorable trash deserves a Trump Presidency and a court full of Kavanaugh trash.
    Agreed we deserve this total trash ..
    This entire administration is total fucking trash.  Its beyond comprehension at this point.  
    Once again I have to ask what's worse?

    This fucked up, narcissistic, hateful, lying trash of an administration. 

    Or the  people who support it, believe  in it, and will  vote for it agan?
    Both.  Its disturbing that people defend and actually back this garbage administration.  AND WILL VOTE FOR IT AGAIN!?!?  Its sickening.  
    If the Dems put up a more moderate candidate who doesn't attack sexual assault victims, I bet they'd win (assuming the Economy doesn't keep zooming up which one would think it can't possibly, because that's ultimately what people vote on).

    If they go all Elizabeth Warren on the country, they will lose.

    The other candidate matters.
    Same old Hillary bullshit defense. 
    Did she not attack sexual assault victims?  Or, was it a different time? Or, are we just supposed to forgive and forget b/c you say so?

    And yet you guys still don't understand why Trump was elected.   Too funny.
    What’s your half baked theory as to why trump won?

    Much longer conversation, so I will keep it to 2 words that liberals are very full of - arrogance and hubris.   And nobody bigger on that than Hillary and Debbie Schultz. 

    You know who understood that?   Bernie supporters.  He was a far worse candidate that would never have gotten elected, but they knew her Achilles heal.  

    Thats not not to say Trump isn’t full of arrogance.  Just that his strategy was arrogance.  She and her supporters are still to this day completely un self aware.  Dangerous place to be,

    its much more more complicated than that, but what you think people should care about isn’t what they care about.
    Thanks for sharing your half-baked theory that is basically you coming up with motivations of millions of trump supporters because Hillary wasn’t likeable. And Sanders would’ve crushed trump if he was nominated. 

    The explanatim is much longer, but this is the wrong thread and improper method.  Anyway, good luck with Elizabeth Warren.  Trump awaits his second term. 

    Bernie Sanders.  Too funny.  

    #TheOtherCandidateMatters

  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,065
    edited October 10
    dignin said:

    A Scary Time


    This is awesome
  • dignin said:

    A Scary Time


    This is awesome
    Agreed
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • pjl44pjl44 Posts: 3,274
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    my2hands said:
    Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices... 

    Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?


    The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning 


    I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judges
    The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well. 
    I could get behind a 20 year term. Only thing is you might want to stagger it evenly once it's implemented. Would be a can of worms if 4 seats opened in 18 months every 20 years.

    I feel like you'd have the same conflict no matter who nominates. Full Senate? Judiciary Comittee? Think that would have gone any better for your taste? I'm frankly stunned at how Trump has done on Justices. Feel great about Gorsuch; didn't love Kavanaugh but he has the resume. If you follow them with an open mind, I think you'll be surprised (especially Gorsuch). They're nowhere near as partisan as elected officials, but I see a lot of people make that assumption. 
    No way should the senate do it, lol. I was more thinking some kind of public law association with a specific mandate to ensure non-partisanship in law and justice. It should have literally no connection to the US government at all, besides serving to select non-partisan judges (aside from through background checks done on their behalf by whatever government agency that would be appropriate - again, one that is non-partisan, i.e. not answering to the POTUS or the administration). Such things are possible believe it or not. Not everyone is a self-serving prick, haha. ;)
    Call me a cynic, but I don't think you can have an organization wielding that much power to be free of partisans. Someone is in charge of staffing that association. Who? It's imperfect, but at the end of the day these are elected officials. It is true that not everyone is a self-serving prick, but you can bet your ass that's who would find their way onto that committee!
    Yeah, you're a cynic. I understand why Americans would feel that way at this point, but that more tells the story of where America is at psychologically, not of what's actually doable. It simply has to be done properly. And no, at the end of the day it doesn't have to be elected officials making any of those related decisions. 
    In any case, surely you can at least agree that the current system is terrible. 
    While I appreciate the condescension, I'll stick with the current system
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 2,999
    mickeyrat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    my2hands said:
    Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices... 

    Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?


    The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning 


    I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judges
    The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well. 
    have heard an idea floated for 18 yr terms. Every 2 years a new justice is seated.
    That’s the only one that makes sense. Every 2 years one gets cycled.
    Anything more is almost a life term, and anything less a two-term President could have his whole pick of the court by the end.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 14,265
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    my2hands said:
    Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices... 

    Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?


    The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning 


    I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judges
    The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well. 
    have heard an idea floated for 18 yr terms. Every 2 years a new justice is seated.
    That’s the only one that makes sense. Every 2 years one gets cycled.
    Anything more is almost a life term, and anything less a two-term President could have his whole pick of the court by the end.
    further, I think the appointments should be in the odd numbered off years. giving 1 president no more than 3 picks.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 9,667
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    Had to register for either Rep or Dem to be eligible to vote in November here in NY ...
    what? I can understand about primaries but an actual election? wtf?
    I was wrong i thought i couldn't vote in midterm elections i just went back and looked and i can but now i registered as a democrat i'm just gonna leave it and change it back to Independent after November , i know for sure i was turned away from the primaries a couple of yrs back as i was not registered as a D or R ...
    Does that not make perfect sense though?
    Why should someone not in the party get to vote who is that party's representative? 
    Everyone gets to vote in the final election. 
    so you are saying those unaffiliated with a particular party should only be allowed in half the process? fuck that.
    Well yeah. If you aren’t apart of the party you shouldn’t be picking their candidate. I understand what you are saying but it’s really not that big of a deal to register and re-register party affiliate. 

    I personally would prefer it if independents could vote in 1 primary of their choosing though.
    Yeah.  Ny has closed primaries.  After a long time being unaffiliated, i registered as democrat for bernie sanders.  Was recently able to vote in some state primaries for some righteous people.  

    Its nice to "take a stand" and brag to people you arent in a party.... but it makes little practical sense to diminish your voice
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 17,271
    edited October 11
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    pjl44 said:
    my2hands said:
    Lifetime appointments are bullshit... it was designed that way for guaranteed control by elite interests... the judges are selected by politicians... politicians are bought and sold like cattle, all of them... therefore, the people buying and controlling the politicians are the ones ultimately selecting the Justices... 

    Roberts court is 73-0 in favor of corporate interests?


    The game is rigged folks. Has been from the beginning 


    I'm afraid to ask how we should select the judges
    The current way clearly sucks far too often, but it's still a hell of a lot better than judges actually running for election. I do agree that a lifetime appointment is ridiculous. Lifetime appointments shouldn't exist in the SCOTUS. There should be a limit. Even if it's a 20 year term, that's better than lifetime appointment. And presidents should actually have ZERO input in who is appointed. I think the nomination process should be completely non-partisan, since that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be as well. 
    have heard an idea floated for 18 yr terms. Every 2 years a new justice is seated.
    That’s the only one that makes sense. Every 2 years one gets cycled.
    Anything more is almost a life term, and anything less a two-term President could have his whole pick of the court by the end.
    further, I think the appointments should be in the odd numbered off years. giving 1 president no more than 3 picks.
    What if the court is hearing a case on the Lost Ark and during the hearing they open the Ark and everyone starts screaming and then their faces melt off and they disappear into a puddle of play doh?  And then it turns out the president already used his three picks prior to the face melting incident?  

  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 12,483

    The ultimate in vanity
    Exploiting their supremacy
    I can't believe the things you say
    I can't believe, I can't believe the price
    We pay
    Nothing can save us
    Justice is lost, justice is raped, justice is gone
    Pulling your strings, justice is done
    Seeking no truth, winning is all
    Find it so grim, so true, so real
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 12,483
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 17,271
    It will be handled by the Russians, Q and some old white dude from Arkansas.
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 17,381
    Jason P said:
    It will be handled by the Russians, Q and some old white dude from Arkansas.
    Does it also include a guy with a Nixon tattoo?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,174
    dankind said:
    Totally. The GOP save face tour 2018.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 17,381
    tbergs said:
    dankind said:
    Totally. The GOP save face tour 2018.
    Roberts might be pissed. After all, he was appointed by Bush, back when repubs still had some modicum of decency. I’ll bet Roberts wouldn’t take kindly to perjury before Congress.
     
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 12,483
    tbergs said:
    dankind said:
    Totally. The GOP save face tour 2018.
    Roberts might be pissed. After all, he was appointed by Bush, back when repubs still had some modicum of decency. I’ll bet Roberts wouldn’t take kindly to perjury before Congress.
     
    Kav is/was a Bush lackey, too. 
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • TikiTiki USAPosts: 6,208
    THAT certainly didn't end the way it should have.   Jesus.

    Impeach that prep school puke.  He's everything you hated about W + a MILLION  he was his LAWYER ffs..  RESIST these POWERS.  
    Bristow VA 05132010 Montreal QC 09072011 Worcester MA 10152013-10162013 Charlottesville VA 10292013 Phoenix AZ 11192013 Leeds UK 07082014 Memphis TN 10142014
    Hampton VA 04182016 Columbia SC 04212016 Fenway Park Boston MA 08072016 Amsterdam NL 06132018

    EV Providence 06152011
  • TikiTiki USAPosts: 6,208

    Q


    I mean come on.
    Bristow VA 05132010 Montreal QC 09072011 Worcester MA 10152013-10162013 Charlottesville VA 10292013 Phoenix AZ 11192013 Leeds UK 07082014 Memphis TN 10142014
    Hampton VA 04182016 Columbia SC 04212016 Fenway Park Boston MA 08072016 Amsterdam NL 06132018

    EV Providence 06152011
  • TikiTiki USAPosts: 6,208
    Young Republicans attacking progressives in the street?   This is what's happening.  In NYC of all places.  

    Supreme Leader is kinda Fascist-y.  all those rallies and whatnot.

    Bristow VA 05132010 Montreal QC 09072011 Worcester MA 10152013-10162013 Charlottesville VA 10292013 Phoenix AZ 11192013 Leeds UK 07082014 Memphis TN 10142014
    Hampton VA 04182016 Columbia SC 04212016 Fenway Park Boston MA 08072016 Amsterdam NL 06132018

    EV Providence 06152011
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 3,477
    Tiki said:
    Young Republicans attacking progressives in the street?   This is what's happening.  In NYC of all places.  

    Supreme Leader is kinda Fascist-y.  all those rallies and whatnot.

    Dear Leader is absolutely a fan of fascism. I mean, MSB said he didn't do anything to the missing reporter so it must have been rogue elements. He could be doing PR for Saudi Arabia. Love for Kim, Putin, Duterte, Erdogan, Jinping - no promotion of human rights, just love for strongmen and absolute rule. 

    The rallies are completely unprecedented, as are most of Trump's behavior. He held 9 in December of 2016 - his Thank You tour. Then he held his first 're-inauguration' rally the month after he was sworn in as president. He had 10 in 2017. He's had 25 so far in 2018 - considered to be Mid-Term rallies, though it is more self-adoration than campaigning for the supposed candidate. He has 10 more scheduled before the mid-terms. Fox doesn't even cover them anymore - they are just a vehicle to have his adoring cult members fill the hole in his empty soul and as with any addiction; he needs them more often and with a higher level of adoration. 

    He completely ignores anywhere in the United States except for places where he has a rabid following. Like any good cult leader. 
Sign In or Register to comment.